June, 2009

RTCC Update

by Diane Garcia, BS, CRT, RT (R)(CT)
CSRT Director-at-Large

On March 13, 2009, many educators, technologists and other interested parties attended the latest RTCC meeting in Sacramento. Many subcommittees gave their presentations on the work they have done over the past few years regarding revisions of the educational standards for the following: Limited Permit X-Ray Technicians, Bone Densitometry, Fluoroscopy, Radiation Therapy, Mammography, Radiologic Technology. Many of these curriculum have not been updated in decades. These updates will eventually change the regulations for all types of radiology schools in California.

The RTCC also voted and passed the acceptance of the Joint Review Commission on Education in Radiologic Technology (JRCERT) as an approved accreditation mechanism for California, along with the state's own accreditation. This was long needed and will alleviate the duplication of visits and paperwork faced by JRCERT accredited radiology programs. Also, the JRCERT accreditation is the "Gold Standard" in the U.S. Unfortunately, this acceptance will not relieve the programs of the fees paid to the State of California. To be very clear, the state will retain the ability to come in and review or inspect a program if it feels the need.

The educators in the room were very pleased when this was decided. Also passed was the alignment of California accreditation standards with those of the JRCERT for programs that have chosen only California accreditation. Due to the difficulty of updating standards and regulations, this important change will ensure that the curriculums and standards are updated regularly and will remain in line with the ASRT recommendations.

Regarding Fluoroscopy, there were several proposed changes to the regulations:

1. Passed: Graduates of JCERT accredited programs who have passed the ARRT (R) examinations would not need to sit for the California fluoroscopy permit examination. This permit would be added in addition to the CRT certificate when applying for both. (Fees would still pertain.)
2. Not Passed: A licentiate possessing a current California fluoroscopy permit or Radiologist Certificate (Supervisor/Operator, S & O) could attest to the competency of another physician in the use of fluoroscopy equipment in order to obtain a S & O license.

Of course, none of these are effective yet. It will take time for all the legal issues surrounding these proposals to be completed.

There were also two bills of concern, CA AB 356 and AB 445. A vote was taken of the RTCC to formally oppose AB 356. AB 356 essentially will allow Physician Assistants to be considered as licentiates and operate fluoroscopy equipment as such but failed to include few, if any, educational standards. This is truly an area of concern regarding radiation safety and patient care. . Although it was stated they were speaking of specific instances such as PICC line placement, the bill did not outline these terms and was extremely vague. In time, this vagueness could be interpreted to include all types of radiology procedures without any formal education standards at all. AB 455 was poorly written and is not likely to proceed. I urge everyone to look at the CSRT website for more information regarding these bills and also read Lorenza Clausen's article in this newsletter.

Limited Permit (LP) X-ray Technician schools presented the request to reduce the number of procedures for the skull category from 100 total exams completed on real patients to a split of 60 patient and 40 on phantoms. Cited was the fact that there is reduced availability of those examinations being done and available for competency completion. This proposal was sent back to the subcommittee for clarifications.

Another proposed change for LPs was for the hip/pelvis portion of torso skeletal to be included in the extremity category. This did not pass due to radiation safety issues express by the RTCC. It was also sent back to the subcommittee for clarification.

The topics that were requested for the RTCC meeting agenda and will be considered are:

1. CT certification of all technologists who operate CT scanners in California. This was proposed by Dr. Roger Eng, RTCC member.
2. Ethics requirement for CRTs and licensure in line with the ARRT requirement for ethics issues:
1. This was in response to the article in the LA Times about a convicted rapist who became a CRT. This person can work as a CRT in California and not have his license revoked event though this is a sexual offence and a felony.
2. This is due to the fact that the crime was committed before he became a CRT so is not considered under California's CRT requirements to practice.
3. By the ARRT ethics standards, he cannot become an ARRT technologist because there was a felony on his records regardless if it was before or after taking the ARRT examination. This crime was so heinous that he would not pass the ARRT ethics committee.

I hope to see all of you at the next RTCC meeting on September 23, 2009, in Sacramento. Please check for the exact location on the CSRT website as the date approaches.